Let's be honest

[The Grand Nudger]

My point was the differing levels of explanation.  If you don't like the Henry Ford analogy, take Frank Whittle as the inventor/creator of the jet engine.  The point is Whittle does NOT compete with the laws and engineering steps to create the jet engine.  Both explain the existence.

Whittle doesn't explain the existence of engines anymore than Ford did.  I could know absolutely everything about either man and I would still know nothing about engines.  If I know anything about engines, all details about either man are extraneous to that understanding...of engines.

I would saw that the jet engine DOES require a person/mind to USE the laws to make it work.  That's what inventing is.  Using the world we have, the knowledge we've acquired to invent something new.  Requires a mind.  One explains HOW/WHAT is happening, the other is WHY, but both satisfy the question regarding a jet engine. 

Like a squid, you mean?  Do squid explain how jet, or why jet?

Same with water boiling. Someone walks in to your kitchen and see a pot on the stove bubbling and asks you, "Why is the water boiling?" Do you respond with a scientific answer like heat induction and water molecule excitement? No. It's boiling because I'm making pasta for dinner. But that explanation is not contradictory to the scientific explanation to the question. They are both correct. I'm not drawing any lines in the sand, just that I see a lot of naturalist/materialist say that modern science has removed the need for God to explain anything and I disagree because of this differing level of explanation, one from agency.

I think if we kept going with these examples we'd find a pattern. Yes, I do respond to questions accurately. If you ask me what boiling water is, I'll tell you. If you ask me how water boils, I tell you. If you ask me who is boiling water, I'll tell you. What you're telling me, is that you would consistently answer at least two if not all three of these questions with the same response.

There's more than just science and theism competing in these semantics, imo.

[The Architect Of Fate]

My point was the differing levels of explanation.  If you don't like the Henry Ford analogy, take Frank Whittle as the inventor/creator of the jet engine.  The point is Whittle does NOT compete with the laws and engineering steps to create the jet engine.  Both explain the existence.

Whittle doesn't explain the existence of engines anymore than Ford did.  I could know absolutely everything about either man and I would still know nothing about engines.  If I know anything about engines, all details about either man are extraneous to that understanding...of engines.

I would saw that the jet engine DOES require a person/mind to USE the laws to make it work.  That's what inventing is.  Using the world we have, the knowledge we've acquired to invent something new.  Requires a mind.  One explains HOW/WHAT is happening, the other is WHY, but both satisfy the question regarding a jet engine. 

Like a squid, you mean?  Do squid explain how jet, or why jet?

Same with water boiling.  Someone walks in to your kitchen and see a pot on the stove bubbling and asks you, "Why is the water boiling?"  Do you respond with a scientific answer like heat induction and water molecule excitement?  No.  It's boiling because I'm making pasta for dinner.  But that explanation is not contradictory to the scientific explanation to the question.  They are both correct.  I'm not drawing any lines in the sand, just that I see a lot of naturalist/materialist say that modern science has removed the need for God to explain anything and I disagree because of this differing level of explanation, one from agency.

I think if we kept going with these examples we'd find a pattern.  Yes, I do respond to questions accurately.  If you ask me what boiling water is, I'll tell you.  If you ask me how water boils, I tell you.  If you ask me who is boiling water, I'll tell you.  What you're telling me, is that you would consistently answer at least two if not all three of these questions with the same response.

There's more than just science and theism competing in these semantics, imo.

Theists forever cheating  by using known created objects and then projecting that onto objects without a known creator. Making the same error Paley made. They can't use man-made objects to push the idea that all objects were intelligently made they can point to man-made objects being man-made and nothing else it takes extra steps to prove anything humans did make requires an intelligence that isn't either an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity. And isn't just them adding irrelevant questions to the discussion under the notion there must be a why?  and a who?.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who pushes the wind? Who causes the sun and moon rise and set? Who made the trees? Who carved the rivers?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Who pushes the wind?  Who causes the sun and moon rise and set?  Who made the trees?  Who carved the rivers?

Yup, presuppose agency without establishing why any of us should even consider the question in the first place. Why?  even ask why?

[Simon Moon]

Until we have actual testable physical evidence for a god-like being, a god is an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis.  This puts it in violation of the scientific method.

If God created matter, thus by definition is immaterial.

Not sure how you get to the claim that a matter creating god is necessarily immaterial.

Please state that in a logical syllogism so it can be tested for validity and soundness.

How can immaterial be tested with scientific method?  It cannot.

How is it the fault of the scientific method, good standards of evidence, valid and sound logic, that you've defined your god in such a way as to be unverifiable by any method?

If none of the above is applicable to verifying that your god exists, by what method should we use?

You have also seemed to spell out, in pretty plain terms, that your own beliefs are unjustifiable.

I believe you can extrapolate and deduce some logical inferences that point to a "super"natural mind/being.

Please enlighten us!

I hope you are not referring to the so called, philosophical arguments for the existence of a god, i.e., Kalam, ontological, teleological, arguments.

[Angrboda]

Who pushes the wind?  Who causes the sun and moon rise and set?  Who made the trees?  Who carved the rivers?

[Belacqua]

Not sure how you get to the claim that a matter creating god is necessarily immaterial.

The idea is that before God created matter, there was no matter.

If God was made of matter, then there was already matter. 

So the thing that created matter couldn't be made of matter.

[Anomalocaris]

That doesn’t quite qualify as an idea.

[HappySkeptic]

Not sure how you get to the claim that a matter creating god is necessarily immaterial.

The idea is that before God created matter, there was no matter.

If God was made of matter, then there was already matter. 

So the thing that created matter couldn't be made of matter.

Following the same logic:


Before God created existence, there was no existence.

If God was an existent entity, then there was already existence before God.

So the thing that created existence could not have already existed.


Is this sound?

[Astreja]

Until we have actual testable physical evidence for a god-like being, a god is an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis.  This puts it in violation of the scientific method.

If God created matter, thus by definition is immaterial.  How can immaterial be tested with scientific method?  It cannot.  I believe you can extrapolate and deduce some logical inferences that point to a "super"natural mind/being.

I believe that it is literally impossible for a god to create matter ex nihilo. Any action requires energy. There is an equivalence of energy and matter. Therefore, the best that a god could do would be to rearrange the matter/energy "stuff" that already existed prior to any action being taken by the god.